{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Section Ratio General:
3/6/2013 9:33:38 AM
45
[quote]In a letter to Paul dated on Monday, Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "[u]extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate[/u]" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States.[/quote]
In a summarized form for you: It'll only happen if something as big as Pearl Harbor 1941 happens.
Edit: Also, there are members on both parties being cool with it. Also, the link title is too misleading. Obama =/= Holden.
English
-
Edited by The Dark Hadou: 3/6/2013 9:56:09 AMHow is potentially using drones on American targets if an "extraordinary circumstance" dictated that it was the only permissible option any different from using them against terror suspects across the world? In fact, how is it any different from your police shooting criminals dead (which they do all the time)?
-
Really? If police did what you said they do, then there would be no criminals in our prisons.
-
Where did I say police shoot every criminal no questions asked? I said police shoot criminals dead (which they do) not police shoot [b]all[/b] criminals dead.
-
[quote]In fact, how is it any different from your police shooting criminals dead [u](which they do all the time)[/u]?[/quote] Underlined the part that you said you didn't say.
-
Derp? Read my replies to Godlike below. That doesn't mean they do it in every single instance but that they do it enough that it isn't uncommon. There was around 600 fatal shootings by police in the US in 2012 so, as it's happening more than daily, I can safely use that phrase.
-
[url=http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/arrests/index.html]Nationwide, law enforcement made an estimated[i] 13,687,241 [/i]arrests (except traffic violations) in 2009[/url]. Granted this is from 2009, but one can get the impression that the total arrests for 2012 may also be in the millions. 600 fatal shootings by police when trying to arrest a criminal compared to millions is hardly enough to say "it happens all the time." Not recent enough for you? In [url=http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/10/29/over-750000-arrests-for-marijuana-last-year/]2011, there were over 750,000 arrests made just for marijuana.[/url] This doesn't even take into account home invasions, grand theft auto, homicide etc...Just using this, once again 600 is hardly enough out of 750K to say "it happens all the time."
-
Edited by The Dark Hadou: 3/6/2013 6:48:45 PMJesus -blam!-ing wept. If it's happening on an average of daily it's happening all the time, bro, as it's happening every day. Typically dickheads on BNet who fixate on a few words rather than the actual meaning of a post. [url=http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=5&gs_ri=psy-ab&cp=15&gs_id=ac&xhr=t&q=all+the+time+meaning&es_nrs=true&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=all+the+time+me&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43287494,d.d2k&fp=72b9c73243d0bb8d&biw=1440&bih=744]Just so I don't have to keep justifying my choice of words.[/url]
-
I'm merely pointing out that it is erroneous of you to say "all the time" when there are millions arrest a year and a paltry 600 arrest attempts resulted in a fatal shooting. Considering that millions of arrests happen a year, it is fair to say that over 27,000 arrests happen a day (using 10 million/year to make it easy even though I stated 13 million), and using your 600, only ~2 arrest attempts per day result in a fatal shooting. So 2 per day out of 27,000 would hardly qualify as "happens all the time." But it's clear you have hard-on of hate for police and fatal shootings. Good, good, let the hate flow through you. Good day.
-
Edited by The Dark Hadou: 3/6/2013 6:55:32 PMWhatever dude, the link in my last post shows that "all the time" is the same as "day in day out" which common sense should tell you is equivalent to "daily" which can be the same as "often". My point was that using drones in the US, if circumstances dictate it's the only possible solution, is no worse than using them abroad to take out terrorists or no worse than police capping someone if they have to.
-
It is different than police taking someone out. Police have a tendency to not wantonly shoot criminals. Fatal shooting involving police and criminals tend to erupt from the police feeling their lives are at jeopardy. This is highly unlike a drone. A drone does not have to worry about its life, since there is no life to worry about. It is an inanimate object controlled by a user who is far separated from the situation. Which is nothing like a police officer involved in some violent altercation with a criminal and the the PO has to use lethal force. Using drones to take out terrorists overseas may fall under military action since it is a war (but not really, since Congress never declared it a war IIRC). Each of those 3 scenarios are different from each other.
-
Edited by The Dark Hadou: 3/6/2013 7:10:40 PMSo a police officer capping someone because he thinks that they present a high risk of causing others/the officer serious harm is different from a drone being launched to take someone/a group out because they have been judged, by whoever is in charge, to present a high risk of causing serious harm to others? I disagree. They're both the use of lethal force to prevent harm to others. Just because one is more impersonal than the other doesn't make the use of that force any different or any less valid if they are the only possible recourse in the specific circumstances in which the force is used.
-
Edited by MurcSpyder: 3/6/2013 7:40:00 PMIt's clear you have a strong dislike for police simply by your use of the word "capped," like police officers are similar to criminals. Ignoring, your obvious dislike, police officers will use lethal force if their imminent life is in danger. They are not acting the part of a judge, jury, or executioner; they are simply protecting their own lives. A drone being used on American soil against an American citizen will never have its life in danger because there is no life to be put in danger. A lethal drone strike is no different than lethal injection or the electric chair. The difference, though, is that for the latter two, there is a due process of the criminal being arrested and tried and convicted guilty. Using a drone strike circumvents that process. The reason that police officers will sometimes engage in lethal force is not because they are circumnavigating the legal process, like the drone strike, but rather because their imminent lives are at stake. Huge difference. Now Holder, and I believe you and few others, say that it could be necessary in the unlikely event of something catastrophic similar to September 11th, 2001 or the attacks on Pearl Harbor. While I can somewhat see that reason, it is still hard to comprehend. Because in those two situations, who would have been the targets? The airplanes before they crashed into the Second Tower, Pentagon and field? The Japanese pilots in their aircrafts? While I can see what he means, in the sense of some extreme threat similar to those two situations, it may have helped his case and prevented people from misconstruing his point, if he could have come up with an actual hypothetical situation. For example, US citizens using a large factory or warehouse to make biochemical weapons for use against other citizens or something else extreme. The way Holder went about his position did nothing but to confound the already touchy subject. Since, he says that it may be possible, speaking hypothetically, it would not have hurt his case if he could have actually come up with a hypothetical situation. However, I still disagree with drones being used on American soil to take out American citizens.
-
Edited by The Dark Hadou: 3/6/2013 8:26:40 PMThere was no hidden meaning behind my choice of "capped" over "shot" so please don't think it indicated my feelings about police in any way. I agree that he could have given examples of the "extraordinary circumstances" in which drones may be used in order to leave no doubt but I personally feel the meaning behind his words was pretty obvious (i.e. it would have to be an event akin to 9/11, or other tragedy, to warrant the use of such force). Or that was at least my immediate interpretation of them and I don't think it's baseless given there isn't really anything else he could have meant by "extraordinary circumstances". I still disagree that a cop shooting a criminal to prevent them harming/killing others as a last recourse is any different to a drone being launched to take out a target in order to prevent harm/death to others as a last recourse. Especially as the harm caused by the drones target would, in my mind, be far greater than that which could be caused by a criminal that the cop may shoot. They're hardly going to use drones against one man with a gun, are they? I'd also point out that the drone is obviously not protecting itself, as the policeman may be, but is protecting others, as the policeman may be. Again, I see no difference between the use of a drone by a remote pilot to stop harm to others, if there is no other solution, and the use of a gun by a cop to prevent harm to others. The impersonality/calculation of one does not make it any less valid a course of action, or any more a circumvention of due process, than the other IMO.
-
[quote]There was no hidden meaning behind my choice of "capped" over "shot" so please don't think it indicated my feelings about police in any way.[/quote]Either way, I disregarded it since your choice on words was irrelevant to the overall point you were making. So, no worries there. [quote]Or that was at least my immediate interpretation of them and I don't think it's baseless given there isn't really anything else he could have meant by "extraordinary circumstances".[/quote] Still, I feel, giving out a situation where it may be warranted may have done something to quell the feelings people are getting over Holder's opinion on the matter. But what's done is done. As for the rest of your point, I still disagree. I see a huge difference between a police officer using lethal force and a drone, the military, using lethal force on civilians. We are obviously not going to persuade each other, so we will simply have to agree to disagree.
-
Fair enough dude, agreeing to disagree is better than us continuing in trying to make each other accept the others opinion :) Apologies for my initial harsh words as well, they obviously don't apply to you.
-
If only more people were willing to agree to disagree, maybe we'd all get along with each other better. No worries about the harsh words. If I came off harsh or condescending, then I apologize, as well.
-
Still doesn't help your case. You lowered it down from "all the time" to "frequently". If that were true, they wouldn't be releasing convicts from prison and prisons would have less residents in it than they do now.
-
Edited by The Dark Hadou: 3/6/2013 7:34:39 PMI didn't lower anything, "frequently" was the original meaning of what I said. "Frequently" and "all the time" are synonymous. Also, what case? My point was that police shooting people and drones killing people abroad are the same as using drones in extraordinary circumstances in the US. How was I wrong? [quote]If that were true, they wouldn't be releasing convicts from prison and prisons would have less residents in it than they do now.[/quote] You just went full retard.
-
Nice ad hominem. Face it. You got caught saying something that a 10 year old would say, got called out for it and now you're trying to change the story. Great argument. I remember doing that when I was your age, but that was around 10 years ago. And you're comparing something as using a drone in an extreme circumstance as code red national threat vs. police that will shoot someone with lethal force if that person shoots first? Yeah, okay. Hey, did you know that if I clap my hands twice, I can somehow make someone give birth to a baby? It's an awesome power.
-
Dumbass. Way to say I'm wrong and yet give no agrument against what I said. Also, "all the time" is synonymous with "often" (as I have proven with my link in a reply to Murcielago( and it's not my fault you're too dumb to know that. To be honest, as you're obviously the dumbest person I've talked to in this thread by a long, long way I'm going to have to mute you for being so -blam!-ing stupid.
-
[quote]In fact, how is it any different from your police shooting criminals dead (which they do all the time)?[/quote]Simple ... the drone does not have the option of an arrest. No option of "[i]lay down, hands on back[/i]" and taken into custody for judgement and sentencing. The drone is being sent into kill, premeditated murder, without judgement.
-
Edited by The Dark Hadou: 3/6/2013 12:12:19 PMSo you're saying that every time a US police officer guns down a suspect they never just open fire and blow the perp away? That they always give them due warning regardless of the circumstances? You're also assuming that there would not have been fair warning given prior to the drones being sent in.
-
Let compare the two, your;[quote]which they do all the time[/quote]to my "[i]taken into custody for judgement[/i]"? Wonder how all those prisoners got into jail ... guess in your world they must have run very fast and surrended, otherwise they would be dead because thats what the police do "[i]all the time[/i]" - lol But lets give [b]YOU[/b] the chance, link to the police guidelines (in any state, should be easy) which make it lawful to shoot without providing due warning.
-
You know that "all the time" is synonymous with "frequently" and does not mean "in every single instance", right? Also, lol that you think police never bend the rules, have never been known to just open fire and always follow procedure. Naive much?
-
[quote]lol that you think police never bend the rules, have never been known to just open fire and always follow procedure. Naive much?[/quote]And yet it is still illegal ... you are yet to provide that single link of proof ... or in your world is proof also [u]synonymous[/u] with "lets just make it up"? For the head of any government to come out and claim it is acceptable to commit an illegal act is just a joke ... especially when this same government threatens/invades other countries who commit [u]entirely legal[/u] activities (under even its own court) but which do not align with its own interest.
